Generate authenticator

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, externally-visible operation. The description adds that a secret and QR provisioning payload are produced, but says nothing about whether the secret is single-use, whether it is returned once only, whether it is stored server-side, or what happens to an already-enabled authenticator.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short line with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a state-changing security-sensitive endpoint, one sentence leaves too much unsaid.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only place an agent could learn about the returned secret/QR payload and the enrollment flow — and it doesn't. For an open-world, non-read-only tool with three undocumented parameters this is a substantial gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three untyped parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description supplies no information about what any of them accept. Since the schema provides no compensating detail, the description would need to carry the burden and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('generate a new TOTP secret') and adds the concrete output artifact ('provisioning QR data'), which distinguishes it from peers like get_twofactor or verify_otp. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from activate_authenticator, which is the nearest sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description that this is a pre-enrollment step that must be followed by activate_authenticator, nor whether it replaces an existing authenticator or fails if one is already configured.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.